Consciousness is the collapse of the wave function

Quantum mechanics and the organic light of consciousness

Quantum mechanics suggests that particles can be in a state of superposition - in two states at the same time - until a measurement take place. Only then does the wavefunction describing the particle collapses into one of the two states. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wave function takes place when a conscious observer is involved. But according to Roger Penrose, it’s the other way around. Instead of consciousness causing the collapse, Penrose suggested that wavefunctions collapse spontaneously and in the process give rise to consciousness. Despite the strangeness of this hypothesis, recent experimental results suggest that such a process takes place within microtubules in the brain. This could mean that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality, arising first in primitive bio-structures, in individual neurons, cascading upwards to networks of neurons, argues Roger Penrose collaborator Stuart Hameroff.  


Consciousness defines our existence. It is, in a sense, all we really have, all we really are, The nature of consciousness has been pondered in many ways, in many cultures, for many years. But we still can’t quite fathom it.

panpsychism SUGGESTED READING What physicists get wrong about consciousness By Philip Goff Consciousness is, some say, all-encompassing, comprising reality itself, the material world a mere illusion. Others say consciousness is the illusion, without any real sense of phenomenal experience, or conscious control. According to this view we are, as TH Huxley bleakly said, ‘merely helpless spectators, along for the ride’. Then, there are those who see the brain as a computer. Brain functions have historically been compared to contemporary information technologies, from the ancient Greek idea of memory as a ‘seal ring’ in wax, to telegraph switching circuits, holograms and computers. Neuroscientists, philosophers, and artificial intelligence (AI) proponents liken the brain to a complex computer of simple algorithmic neurons, connected by variable strength synapses. These processes may be suitable for non-conscious ‘auto-pilot’ functions, but can’t account for consciousness.

Finally there are those who take consciousness as fundamental, as connected somehow to the fine scale structure and physics of the universe. This includes, for example Roger Penrose’s view that consciousness is linked to the Objective Reduction process - the ‘collapse of the quantum wavefunction’ – an activity on the edge between quantum and classical realms. Some see such connections to fundamental physics as spiritual, as a connection to others, and to the universe, others see it as proof that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality, one that developed long before life itself.


Penrose turned the conscious observer around. Instead of consciousness causing collapse, wavefunctions collapsed spontaneously, causing a moment – a ‘quantum – of consciousness.


Consciousness and the collapse of the wavefunction

Penrose was suggesting Objective Reduction not only as a scientific basis for consciousness, but also as a solution to the ‘measurement problem’ in quantum mechanics. Since the early 20th century, it has been known that quantum particles can exist in superposition of multiple possible states and/or locations simultaneously, described mathematically as a wavefunction according to the Schrödinger equation. But we don’t see such superpositions because, it appeared to early quantum researchers, the very act of measurement, or of conscious observation, seemed to ‘collapse’ the wavefunction to definite states and location - the conscious observer effect - consciousness collapsed the wavefunction. But this view put consciousness outside the purview of science. Another proposal is ‘Many Worlds’ in which there is no collapse, and each possibility evolves its own universe.

Penrose turned the conscious observer around. Instead of consciousness causing collapse, wavefunctions collapsed spontaneously, causing a moment – a ‘quantum – of consciousness. Collapse, or quantum state reduction, occurred at an objective threshold in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry.


While the wave-function is viewed by many as pure mathematics in an abstract space, Penrose characterized it as a process in the fine scale structure of the universe.


Penrose first likened quantum particles to tiny curvatures in spacetime geometry (as Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity had done for large objects like the sun). Superposition states of multiple possibilities, or of delocalized particles, could then be viewed as opposing curvatures, and hence separations in the fine scale structure of the universe, spacetime geometry. Were such separations to continue, ‘Many Worlds’ would result.

But such separations would be unstable, and reduce, or ‘collapse’ to definite states, selected neither randomly, nor algorithmically, but ‘non-computably’, perhaps reflecting ‘Platonicvalues’ embedded in spacetime geometry. Thus while the wave-function is viewed by many as pure mathematics in an abstract space, Penrose characterized it as a process in the fine scale structure of the universe.

And each Objective Reduction event would entail a moment of ‘proto-conscious’ experience in a random microenvironment, without memory, or context. But occasionally, at least, a feeling of pleasure would arise, e.g.  from quantum optical effects leading to Objective Reduction in a micelle, providing a feedback fitness function to to optimize pleasure. Virtually all human and animal behavior is in some way related to the pursuit of pleasure in its various forms.


In the mid 1990s I teamed with Roger Penrose to suggest that quantum vibrations in microtubules in brain neurons were ‘orchestrated’. Consciousness was somewhat like music in the structure of spacetime.


Proto-conscious moments would lack memory, meaning and context, but have phenomenal ‘qualia’ – a primitive form of conscious experience. They may be like the unharmonious tones, notes and sounds of an orchestra tuning up. In the mid 1990s I teamed with Roger Penrose to suggest that quantum vibrations in microtubules in brain neurons were ‘orchestrated’, hence ‘Orchestrated Objective Reduction’. Consciousness was somewhat like music in the structure of spacetime.   

Our Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory was viewed skeptically. Technological quantum computers were operated near absolute zero temperatures to avoid thermal decoherence, so quantum prospects in the ‘warm, wet and noisy’ brain seemed unlikely. But we knew quantum optical activity could occur within non-polar regions in microtubule proteins, where anesthetics appeared to act to selectively block consciousness. Recently we were proven right: a quantum optical state of superradiance has been shown in microtubules, and preliminary evidence suggests it is inhibited by anesthetics. How do quantum activities at this level affect brain-wide functions and consciousness?

It is becoming apparent that consciousness may occur in single brain neurons extending upward into networks of neurons, but also downward and deeper, to terahertz quantum optical processes, e.g. ‘superradiance’ in microtubules, and further still to fundamental spacetime geometry (Figure 1). I agree that consciousness is fundamental, and concur with Roger Penrose that it involves self-collapse of the quantum wavefunction, a rippling in the fine scale structure of the universe.

Organic light per se isn’t consciousness. But organic light could be the interface between the brain and conscious processes in the fine scale structure of the universe. 

Quantum image2

Figure 1. A scale-invariant hierarchy extending downward from a cortical pyramidal neuron (left) into microtubules, tubulin dipoles, organic ring dipoles and spacetime geometry curvatures. Self-similar dynamics recur every three orders of magnitude.

Light and consciousness

Impossible to directly measure or observe, consciousness might reveal itself in the brain by significant deviation from mere algorithmic non-conscious processes, like reflexive, auto-pilot behaviors. Such deviation is found in cortical Layer V pyramidal neurons (see Figure 1)  in awake animals, without changes in external membrane potentials. This suggests ‘conscious’ modulation may arise inside neurons, from deeper, faster quantum processes in cytoskeletal microtubules (see Figure 1). These could include Penrose Objective Reduction connecting to fundamental spacetime geometry.

Light is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be seen by the eyes of humans and animals – visible light. Each point on the spectrum corresponds with a photon of a particular wavelength, and inverse frequency. Each wavelength is seen by the eye and brain as a different color. In addition to wavelength/frequency, photons have other properties including intensity, polarization, phase and orbital angular momentum.

Ancient traditions characterized consciousness as light. Religious figures were often depicted with luminous ‘halos’, and/or auras. Hindu deities are portrayed with luminous blue skin. And people who have ‘near death’ and ‘out of body’ experiences described being attracted toward a ‘white light’. In many cultures, those who have ‘awakened to the truth about reality’ are ‘enlightened.’


Organic light per se isn’t consciousness. But organic light could be the interface between the brain and conscious processes in the fine scale structure of the universe.


In recent years, biophotons have been determined to occur in brain neurons, e.g. in ultraviolet, visible and infra-red wavelengths from oxidative metabolism in mitochondria.

Light was prevalent in the early universe, e.g. for a period beginning 10 seconds after the Big Bang, when photons dominated the energy landscape and briefly illuminated reality. However photons, protons and electrons then fused into a hot, opaque plasma, obscuring reality for 350,000 years until the universe cooled, enabling electrons and protons to form neutral atoms, and build matter and structure. Photons became free to roam a mostly transparent universe, and upon meeting matter, reflect, scatter or be absorbed, generally without significant chemical interaction. However compounds containing organic carbon rings, essential molecules in living systems, are notable exceptions.

18th century chemists knew of linear chains of carbon atoms with extra hydrogens – ‘hydrocarbons’, like methane, propane etc. They also knew of an oily, highly flammable molecule with 6 carbons they called benzene, but didn’t understand its structure. One night the German chemist August Kekule had a dream, that linear hydrocarbons were snakes, and one swallowed its tail – the mythical ‘Ourobouros’. He awoke to proclaim (correctly, it turned out) “benzene is a ring”!

Each hexagonal carbon benzene ring has 3 extra electrons which extend as ‘electron clouds’ above and below the ring, comprised of what later became known as ‘pi’ electron resonance’ orbitals.  Within these clouds, electrons can switch between specific orbitals and energy levels by first absorbing a photon, and then subsequently emitting a lower energy photon. This is the basis for quantum optical effects including fluorescence, phosphorescence, excitons and superradiance.

Hexagonal organic rings with quantum optical properties may fuse, and include 5-sided rings to form ‘indole’ rings found in psychoactive molecules, living systems, and throughout the universe, e.g. in interstellar dust.

The hot plasma of the early universe had led to formation of poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), fused organic (‘aromatic’) complexes of benzene and indole rings. Ice-encrusted in inter-stellar dust, PAHs are still quantum optically active, e.g. fluorescent, and emitting photons seen on earth. This ‘organic light’ may play a key role in the origin and development of life and consciousness.

Life and consciousness – Which came first?

Life on earth is said to have begun in a simmering mix of aqueous and oily compounds, sunlight and lightning, called the ‘Primordial soup’, as proposed by Oparin and Haldane in the early 20th century. In the 1950s Miller and Urey simulated a version of the primordial soup and found ‘amphipathic’ biomolecules with a non-polar, benzene-like pi resonance organic ring on one end, and a polar, charged tail on the other. Such molecules are prevalent in biology, e.g. aromatic amino acids tryptophan (indole ring), phenylalanine and tyrosine in proteins, components of membranes and nucleic acids, and psychoactive molecules like dopamine, serotonin, LSD and DMT .

Oparin and Haldane proposed the non-polar, ‘hydrophobic’ pi resonance electron clouds coalesced to avoid the aqueous environment (‘oil and water don’t mix’). The polar, water soluble tails would stick outwardly, forming a water soluble ‘micelle’ with a non-polar interior. These micelles somehow developed into functional cells, and then multi-cellular organisms, long before genes. But why would inanimate creatures self-organize to perform purposeful complex functions, grow and evolve behaviors? And then, presumably, at some point, develop consciousness? Or was consciousness ‘there all along’?   

Mainstream science and philosophy assume that consciousness emerged at some point in the course of evolution, possibly fairly recently, with the advent of the brain and nervous systems. But Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and the Objective Reduction theory of Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness preceded life.

Back in the Primordial soup, could light-induced proto-conscious moments have occurred by Penrose Obejtive Reduction in micelles in the primordial soup? Did such moments provide a feedback fitness function to optimize primitive pleasure, sparking the origin of life and driving its evolution? Are similar events occurring in PAHs and organic rings throughout the universe?

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

David Simpson 1 January 2023

Because things happen, there is consciousness. If nothing is happening, there is nothing to be conscious of, ergo no consciousness. The universe is watching itself happen and, presumably, liking what it sees, because things just keep on happening.

Brian Flanagan 1 31 December 2022

Einstein said that, When the solution is simple, God is answering.

My chief complaint about much of the discussion in the quantum consciousness camp has to do with a wholesale treatment of consciousness. One gets the impression that the writers mean to provide an explanation of the whole kit and caboodle at one go.

But consciousness is evidently not a monolithic thing. We may be conscious of our thoughts, our dreams, our ideas, our perceptions, and so on.

Early on, I chose to focus instead on our simple sensation of color. This turned out to be a winning strategy, leading us by the hand into the heart of contemporary physics and mathematics.

The key was the perfect simplicity of color. I wrote earlier that Schrödinger was, in his time, the foremost authority on color science. Before him there was Maxwell, who unified light, electricity and magnetism in his eponymous equations. Here’s what he had to say:

When a beam of light falls on the human eye, certain sensations are produced, from which the possessor of that organ judges of the color and luminance of the light. Now, though everyone experiences these sensations and though they are the foundation of all the phenomena of sight, yet, *on account of their absolute simplicity, they are incapable of analysis,* and can never become in themselves objects of thought. If we attempt to discover them, we must do so by artificial means and our reasonings on them must be guided by some theory. (My emphasis.)

In their mammoth work on the foundations of mathematics, Russell and Whitehead made the point with remarkable clarity: Thus "this is red," "this is earlier than that," are atomic propositions.

Now, a number of otherwise learned heads have stumbled over this problem. To the extent of denying the existence of color, or arguing that color is an illusion. They seem to have thought they were being scientific. Well, this is perverse. Here’s Einstein again to back me up:

We are accustomed to regarding as real those sense perceptions which are common to different individuals, and which therefore are, in a measure, impersonal. The natural sciences, and in particular, the most fundamental of them, physics, deal with such sense perception.

And then, if colors are an illusion, how is it that we’re able to engineer colorful display screens for our TVs and computers? No, this will not do. What to do, though?

My answer consists in taking nature at her word. If colors are so simple, we might reasonably call them elemental. And every theory must begin with undefined elements, in order to avoid an infinite regression of definition, as Aristotle knew.

As with color, so with sound, touch, feelings of hot and cold. Where in the body of physical theory do we plug in these additional elements of reality?

Well, of course, here I have in mind the seminal work of Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky, everywhere known as EPR:

Whatever the meaning assigned to the term complete, the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory.

To be perfectly plain, then, what I’m suggesting is that color, sound, and so forth just are the missing elements of reality. It’s hard to exaggerate what an unspeakable heresy this is — or was; in a recent book, Wilczek has come close to this conclusion, pointing out the “eerie” parallels between spectral color and the colors of quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. In one lecture, he stopped short of committing himself, saying, in effect, that to go further leads one into the “twilight zone,” which happens to be in my area code.

I conclude for now with Weyl:

"It seems useful to me to develop a little more precisely the "geometry" valid in the two-dimensional manifold of perceived colors. For one can do mathematics also in the domain of these colors. The fundamental operation which can be performed upon them is mixing: one lets colored lights combine with one another in space."

Stuart Hameroff 17 May 2022

To Christian Smith
You are rude and ill-informed.

As far as experimental evidence, see: Lewton T (2022) A quantum of consciousness New Scientist 254(3383):8 It describes anesthetics inhibiting quantum optical effects in microtubules. This evidence for quantum effects in microtubules mediating consciousness is not yet conclusive, but far more robust than support for any other theory of consciousness.

If anything I’ve said has been debunked, please point to it. But first read Section 5.6 in Hameroff S, Penrose R (2014) Consciousness in the universe – A review of the Orch OR theory Physics of Life Reviews 11(1):39-78
in which we respond to criticisms. And see
Hameroff S, Penrose R (2014) Reply to criticism of the ‘Orch OR qubit’ – ‘Orchestrated objective reduction’ is scientifically justified Physics of Life Reviews 11(1):104-112 in which we respond to one particularly nasty and incorrect attack piece. So please don't regurgitate criticisms without acknowledging our previous responses.

To Tam X
The concept of alternate spacetime curvatures
was introduced by Nobel Laureate Sir Roger Penrose based on Einstein’s general relativity.
Have you no insight? Are you a robot?

Stuart Hameroff

Christopher McDonough 10 May 2022

Reminds me of Hegel. I love this stuff because I feel uncontrollably compelled to reject determinism.

Christian Smith 8 May 2022

Hi, Stuart baby? Your nonsense has been debunked for a decade now. Kindly stop spewing it until you have some actual experimental evidence. Because at this point, you're just grifting.

-an actual neuroscientist who learned more about microtubule dynamics in my undergrad neuro class than you apparently have in your entire professional career

Terry Rosen 8 May 2022

Consciousness, in order to have an agreed origin, of any kind, must first be defined.
At that point, discussions outside of that definition can be discarded as irrelevant.
Julian Jaynes defined human consciousness eloquently, and scientifically in the 1980s.
No one has ever proven any portion of his treatise incorrect.
The idea is so simple that any lay person can easily grasp it.
Why neuroscientists don't believe it falls into two main issues. One, they're not familiar with it at all, two, their own identity prevents them from considering the truth of it.
Consciousness, in humans was solved 40 years ago. No quantum mechanics was required.
Further, mammalian biochemistry has NO function of any kind, ever proven to affect particles or physics smaller than the electron. No quantum physical connection, of any kind, is known to connect to us in any way.

Liam B 1 6 May 2022

Kenneth Dey, the idea that the wave function has already collapsed and has an external value waiting to be observed is called "realism", based on the idea there is a set reality out there waiting for us to observe it. The experimental that disproves this is Bell Inequalities experiments.

Roughly what happens is a machine offers you to choose 2 out of 3 possible boxes to look in, each box has a ball that can be 1 of 2 different colors. But the two boxes you choose have different colors 3/4 of the time, regardless of how you choose, when they should be the same 1/3rd of the time or more if they had values before you looked, you can just work out the math and see this is fishy. It disproves the balls having color before you look, so the act of choosing where to look clearly shapes the outcome.

Brad Davis 6 May 2022

When the body dies, so does the physical memory.

Everyone who goes on to Life forgets the bad stuff that happened to them.

The only remember the good stuff, but mostly they look forward to the next age of man.

When a person steps out of their body, they meet angels. At that moment, they are approx 30 years old.

That is why people have said, They don't feel any younger, even if they're old.

Are they asleep at that point? No, they are more alive than they ever were before. It's the physical nature of a person that wears out.

This has been verified by testimony hundreds of times by people who have come close to death and have come back to tell about it.

The only people who remember everything are the people who are going to go to hell. That is a bad place to go. There is no redemption, because there is no forgiveness.

I don't know about consciousness & the collapse of a waveform, but I do know those who believe in Jesus Christ go on to eternal life.

Kenneth Dey 6 May 2022

I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. I'm just a random guy who loves science, and my knowledge is very rudimentary. So I am asking this question from a point of ignorance to learn. But what I don't understand about this hypothesis is this: If the wave function collapses before it is observed so that an observer can then observe it, what is stopping the wave function from having collapsed from the very beginning, long before it is observed, thereby negating the wave function altogether? Does the wave function sense that an observer is in a position to observe, so it collapses so that the observer can then observe it? And if that is the case then why couldn't the wave function always have been collapsed from the beginning waiting on an observer to observe it, which could be a billion years in the future? If a wave function collapses before it is observed, how do we know that it wasn't 'always collapsed'?

Jouko Alanko 6 May 2022

Memory is saved to MT in protofilament between two dimer at hinges. Tryptophane have nonbonding electrons in indole group. When dynein bend hinge and spinwave occurs in same time, born unbounded singlet. Memory looks this :::;::;;;::;;::;. When same wavefunction meet memory it collapses. In MT K+ consentration is high. When MT resonates K+ consentrarion falls down and CaMKii reaction happens

Sael Abellana 6 May 2022

Exactly. The moment consciousness is conscious of its existence, the wave function which holds the key to the real reality, will disposition into psuedu reality as we see today.

Thaddeus Thompson 5 May 2022

Open your minds guys. We are puppets for consciousness.

Jeremy Wiggin 5 May 2022

The wave function part, yes, maybe. The light part, no. You are making basic logical errors, at least in this text of what you mean.
Also why is there no mention of Bohm in this? You wouldn't even think wave function without him.
Ehhh? Sus.

Jeremy Wiggin 5 May 2022

No. Is the answer to this question. I'm sorry you wasted time working on this, because it's non-sense. Yes I understand it, no it's not right.